Here, based on tallies from the NRC report, are the top 20 universities, with
the number of their programs the report ranks in the top 10:

    1. University of California at Berkeley, 38
    2. Stanford University (Cal.), 32
    3. Harvard University (Mass.), 28
    4. Princeton University (N.J.), 22
    5. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 20
    6. Yale University (Conn.), 19
    6. Cornell University (N.Y.), 19
    8. University of Chicago (Ill.), 18
    9. University of Pennsylvania, 15
   10. University of California at San Diego, 14
   10. Columbia University (N.Y.), 14
   10. University of Wisconsin at Madison, 14
   10. University of Michigan, 14
   14. California Institute of Technology, 13
   14. University of California at Los Angeles, 13
   16. University of Washington, 11
   17. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 10
   18. Johns Hopkins University (Md.), 9
   19. Duke University (N.C.), 8
   20. University of Texas at Austin, 7



Berkeley's academic reputation got a boost this week. The National
Research Council ranked Cal top in the nation in its survey of
doctoral education. Berkeley had 35 out of 36 departments, or 97
percent, in the top 10 in their fields--far more than any university in
the nation. MIT and Harvard tied for second place, with 87 percent
of their doctoral programs in the top 10; Stanford came in fourth
with 78 percent. The findings were based on nearly 8,000 faculty
peer rankings of randomly selected programs as well as an array of
quantitative data. Cal's success is also notable because its doctoral
programs in biological sciences are not attached to a medical school.
The New York Times, in its coverage, said Berkeley's top rating was
a "surprise," given the budget cutting of previous years. An
explanation may be found in the campus's record-breaking fundraising
of recent years.


From the New York Times (selected quotes):

"In the nation's most comprehensive assessment of university doctoral
programs, released yesterday, Harvard, Stanford and the University of
California at Berkeley remain at the forefront of scholarly quality...."

This refers to a four-year study done by the National Research
Council, a Congress-chartered independent organization.  3,634
academic programs at 274 institutions were studied, and more than
8,000 faculty members evaluated programs based on "scholarly quality,
educational effectiveness and change in program quality over the
previous five years."  Also a factor was how faculty members across
the country regard their peers.

"[A] surprise was that Berkeley, whose budget was cut 11 percent from
1990 to 1993, had 35 of its 36 departments rated among the top 10 in
their fields in terms of faculty competence and achievement -- far
more than any university in the nation."  UCLA was also mentioned as
doing well.  Directors of the study largely discounted the US News &
World Report rankings.
From the Chronicle of Higher Education, 9/13/95:

"New Study Provides Rankings of Doctoral Programs in U.S."

Doctoral students are taking longer to complete their degrees, and female
and minority students continue to be underrepresented among those receiving
Ph.D.'s, the National Research Council reported Tuesday in a new study.

The study examines the quality and effectiveness of more than 3,600 doctoral
programs in 41 fields at 274 universities across the United States. Programs
were grouped by discipline and ranked according to responses to
questionnaires by a sample of faculty members in each field. The faculty
"raters" were asked to evaluate the "scholarly quality of program faculty"
and the "effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists."

The study also found that top-rated programs tend to have more faculty
members and more graduate students than lower-rated programs.

The last time the council completed a study of doctoral programs like this
one was in 1982. Over all, the rankings of the doctoral not changed
dramatically since then.

Relative rankings in terms of each faculty's "scholarly quality" for
programs in ...

   Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
    1. University of California at San Francisco
    2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    2. Stanford University (Cal.)
    4. University of California at Berkeley
    5. Harvard University (Mass.). . .

   Civil Engineering
    1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    2. University of California at Berkeley
    3. Stanford University (Cal.)
    4. University of Texas at Austin
    5. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. . .

   Computer Sciences
    1. Stanford University (Cal.)
    2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    3. University of California at Berkeley
    4. Carnegie Mellon University (Pa.)
    5. Cornell University (N.Y.). . .

   English Language and Literature
    2.* Yale University (Conn.)
    2. University of California at Berkeley
    2. Harvard University (Mass.)
    4. University of Virginia
    5. Duke University (N.C.)
    5. Stanford University (Cal.). . .

   * A statistical convention ranks as no. 2
     three institutions that tie for first.

    1. Yale University (Conn.)
    2. University of California at Berkeley
    3. Princeton University (N.J.)
    4. Harvard University (Mass.)
    5. Columbia University (N.Y.)
    6. University of California at Los Angeles
    7. Stanford University (Cal.)
    8. University of Chicago (Ill.)
    9. Johns Hopkins University (Md.)
   10. University of Wisconsin at Madison



 Date:  Sept. 12, 1995
  Contacts:  Cheryl Greenhouse, Media Relations Associate
  Darice Griggs, Media Relations Assistant
  (202) 334-2138; Internet 


  Publication Announcement


  A new report from the National Research Council released today offers the
  most systematic and comprehensive assessments of the nation's
  research-doctorate programs to date.  The study examines the quality and
  effectiveness of more than 3,600 doctoral programs in 41 fields at 274
  universities across the United States.  The information in the study can
  be used by prospective graduate students to select programs, and by
  administrators and policy-makers to set priorities and allocate

  The study updates and expands on the Research Council's 1982 assessment
  of graduate programs.  It incorporates new and rapidly growing fields in
  the analysis, refines the techniques for assessing programs, and provides
  a benchmark data base for future studies.

  Universities provided data on the students and faculty participating in
  their programs.  National data bases yielded detailed information about
  faculty research productivity and the demographic characteristics of
  program graduates.  And a survey of nearly 8,000 university faculty
  members provided peer assessments of each program's effectiveness in
  training scholars and research scientists and of the scholarly quality of
  its faculty.

  The data were analyzed in a number of different categories, and programs
  were grouped by discipline into quarters -- from top-rated to lower-rated
  -- on the basis of the reputational rating of the program faculty.  The
  committee's findings include the following:

  > Programs that were included in the 1982 study tended to have a similar
  rating 10 years later.

  > It is taking longer to earn a doctorate at almost every institution in
  almost every field, but, on average, the time is greatest for lower-rated

  > In many fields, women and minorities are still underrepresented among
  those receiving doctorates.  However, despite their underrepresentation,
  they are as likely to graduate from highly rated programs as non-minority

  > Highly rated programs tend to be larger, as measured by the number of
  faculty members, graduate students, and degrees conferred.

  > On average, the number of program faculty has increased since the 1982
  study in every field common to both assessments.  This is true even for
  many fields in the behavioral and social sciences and arts and humanities
  where the number of program graduates has declined.

  In addition to the analysis in the report's narrative section, a series
  of appendices provide detailed information on different measures for each
  program.  Although several of the tables rank programs on the basis of
  the "scholarly quality of program faculty," a program may be ranked
  highly by that measure, but lower in other dimensions, the committee
  said.  In addition, the rankings of individual programs should not be
  averaged to obtain an overall ranking for an institution, since each
  institution has a unique set of programs and very few institutions have
  programs in all fields covered in the assessment.

  To make the data from the study available to researchers and educators
  for further analysis, an electronic file of selected tables from the
  report is available on the Research Council's World Wide Web home page. 
  In addition, a CD-ROM that will include more detailed program-level 
  data is being developed and will be distributed for public use.

  The study was sponsored by the Conference Board of Associated Research
  Councils and funded by the Ford, Andrew W. Mellon, Alfred P. Sloan, and
  William and Flora Hewlett Foundations and the National Academy of

  The National Research Council is the principal operating agency of the
  National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering.  It
  is a private, non-profit institution that provides science and technology
  advice under a congressional charter.  A committee roster is below.

  AND CHANGE are available from the National Academy Press at the mailing
  address in the letterhead; tel.(202) 334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242.  The
  cost of the report is $59.95 (prepaid) plus shipping charges of $4.00 for
  the first copy and $.50 for each additional copy.  Reporters may obtain
  copies from the Office of News and Public Information at the letterhead
  address (contacts listed above).